I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/secretsocietiestOOking 


/ L/  21 K 


TUTTLE 


IKE  U8StiSt 
OF  THE 

omivehsity  of  mm 


Secret  Societies. 


SECRET  SOCIETIES 


A ■ A.V 


J 


c 

( \f 

A THURSDAY  LECTURE  DELIVERED  JANU^Rty  |&(;  pEJppRE 


THE  STUDENTS  OF  OBERLIN  QOlLEGE, 


V. 


AoikAA 


HENRY  C.  KING 


PROFESSOR  IN  OBERLIN  COLLEGE 


published  by  O.  S.  KRIEREL  and  G.  L.  SMITH,  ’89  O.  C. 


,:2  rfiitO  3 fi 


Oberlin  College,  Jan.  ioth,  1890. 
The  undersigned,  having  listened  with  satisfaction  to 
the  lecture  given  in  the  College  Chapel  yesterday,  by 
Professsor  King,  on  Secret  Organizations,  hereby  express 
our  earnest  desire  that  it  be  published  in  pamphlet  form. 


Jas.  H.  Fairchild, 

W.  G.  Ballantine, 

L.  B.  Hall, 

Wm.  G.  Frost, 

C.  H.  Churchill, 

F.  F.  Jewett, 

Mrs.  A.  A.  F.  Johnston, 
A.  H.  Currier, 

G.  F.  Wright, 

John  M.  Ellis, 

James  Monroe. 


PRESS  OF  OBERLIN  RECORD. 
OBERLIN,  OHIO. 


Secret  Societies. 


My  theme  is  Secret  Societies;  and  I speak  in  obedience 
to  the  appointment  of  the  Faculty. 

Oberlin  College  has  a traditional  position  on  this,  as 
on  many  other  questions.  That  position  she  sees  no  rea- 
son to  regret,  nor  to  retreat  from.  It  is  therefore  to  be 
maintained  ; to  be  maintained  in  charity,  as  was  her  posi- 
tion on  slavery,  with  no  judgment  upon  the  motives  of 
others,  but  to  be  maintained,  as  an  abiding  witness  to 
conscientious  convictions. 

Oberlin  does  not  believe  that  this  question  should 
furnish  the  bread  and  butter  of  a college  course ; nor  that 
this  is  the  supreme  reform  of  the  day ; but  she  does  think 
the  question  important  enough  to  take  a position  concern- 
ing it.  The  grounds  of  our  convictions  as  to  such  ques- 
tions, we  owe  it  to  ourselves  to  state  here  from  time  to 
time,  to  you.  And  you  have  a right  to  ask  our  reasons. 
I alone,  of  course,  am  to  be  held  responsible  for  individ- 
ual statements ; the  general  position  taken,  I understand 
to  be  held  by  all  the  Faculty. 

And  this  is  a practical  question,  likely  to  meet  you 
men  hereafter  in  any  community;  and,  if  you  have  not 
considered  it  somewhat  carefully,  likely  then  to  be  decided 
thoughtlessly,  to  your  subsequent  regret  and  loss. 

/ And  the  question  is  not  a small  one,  as  to  the  num- 
bers concerned.  Speaking  only  of  Freemasons,  the  Brit- 
annica  (1879)  says,  there  are  “ said  to  be  in  the  world  more 
than  10,000  lodges,  and  more  than  1,000,000  members.” 

; Meyer’s  Hand  Lexicon  (1888)  makes  the  number  of  Free- 
\ mason  lodges  16,000,  with  138  grand  lodges,  74  of  which 


4 


are  in  the  United  States.  The  Britannica  is  authority  also 
for  the  statement  that  in  1882  the  Odd  Fellows  in  Amer- 
ica claimed  500,000  members.  The  same  year  the  Knights 
of  Pythias  claimed  a membership  of  over  125,000.  There 
has  been  published  a list  of  more  than  two  hundred  different 
secret  orders  of  all  kinds  existing  in  the  United  States, 
though  many  are  local  and  very  short  lived.  The  state- 
ment is  made  upon  competent  authority  that  to-day,  Bos- 
ton has  571  secret  lodges  to  223  churches.  Only  an  esti- 
mate can  be  made  as  to  the  number  of  individuals  included 
in  all  these  two  hundred  orders  of  America,  as  many  be- 
long to  more  than  one  order;  but  a conservative  estimate 
makes  the  number  less,  very  likely  considerably  less,  than 
two  millions.  But  with  all  possible  abatement,  the  num- 
ber is  still  very  large ; the  thinking  man  must  then  ask, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  this  movement?  what  is  its  tend- 
ency ? shall  I go  with  the  crowd  unthinkingly  ? or  shall  I 
move  only  upon  conviction  ? f 

Moreover,  the  very  existence  of  so  many  orders  of 
such  a kind,  in  a free  country,  with  the  ballot  in  the  hand 
of  ever}’  man,  is  an  anomaly,  and  provokes  inquiry. 

And  the  claims  the  societies  themselves  make  to 
power,  do  not  make  inquiry  less  desirable,  nor  less  nec- 
essary. 

As  long  ago  as  1825,  the  Masonic  orator,  Brainard,  at 
New  London,  Conn.,  said  : “ What  is  Masonry  now  ? It 

is  powerful They  [its  members]  are  distributed, 

too,  with  the  means  of  knowing  each  other,  and  the  means 
of  keeping  secret,  and  the  means  of  cooperating — in  the 
desk,  in  the  legislative  hall,  on  the  bench,  in  every  gather- 
ing of  men  of  business,  in  every  party  of  pleasure,  in 
every  enterprise  of  government,  in  every  domestic  circle, 
in  peace  and  in  war,  among  its  enemies  and  friends,  in  one 
place  as  well  as  another ; so  powerful,  indeed,  is  it,  at  this 
time,  that  it  fears  nothing  from  violence,  either  public  or 
private  ; for  it  has  every  means  to  learn  it  in  season  ; to 
counteract,  defeat  and  punish  it.”  The  boast  was  extrav- 


5 


agant,  doubtless  ; but  it  has  been  re-echoed  by  Masonic 
writers  and  orators  many  times  since.  A comparatively 
recent  echo  was  in  the  letter  of  a grand  lodge  secretary,  to 
John  Dougall,  after  he  had  published  in  his  paper,  the  New 
York  Witness,  an  article  against  Masonry;  a letter  con- 
taining this  characteristically  insolent  and  blasphemous 
application  of  Scripture  to  Masonry  : “ Whosoever  shall 
fall  upon  this  stone  shall  be  broken,  but  upon  whomso- 
ever it  shall  fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder.”  Once 
again  the  thinking  man  is  forced  to  ask  himself,  what 
such  insolence  as  that,  in  a land  like  our’s,  means  ? And 
thus  the  claims  of  the  lodges  themselves,  compel  him 
to  investigate  the  meaning  of  the  whole  lodge  movement. 

But  I perhaps  owe  it  to  the  young  women,  to  turn 
aside  a moment,  to  indicate  how  the  subject  concerns 
them. 

It  is  no  longer  true,  I regret  to  say,  as  Prof.  Wilder  of 
Cornell  University,  once  contended,  that  “ secret  societies 
are  exclusively  masculine.”  For  a long  time,  in  some  of 
the  older  orders,  “ side  degrees  ” of  more  or  less  signifi- 
cance, intended  somewhat  to  take  the  edge  off  woman’s 
natural  curiosity  and  make  her  contented  to  remain  ig- 
norant of  the  real  degrees,  have  been  given  to  women. 
Women  may  also  have  part  in  the  Good  Templars,  the 
Grange,  and  some  other  orders.  But  even  this  is  not  the 
extent  of  woman’s  opportunities.  There  are  now  in  a 
number  of  colleges  feminine  fraternities,  strange  to  say, 
the  Alpha  Phi,  for  example,  or,  in  Miss  Willard’s  kindly  eu- 
phemistic phrase,  “ gardens  of  girls  meeting  with  closed 
doors.”  Though  the  recent  report  concerning  the  intro- 
duction of  secret  societies  into  Wellesley  College,  was,  I am 
glad  to  say,  erroneous.  But,  in  fact,  I have  learned  lately 
of  a new  species  of  the  human  race,  the  “ Frat.  girl  ” (the 
Fraternity  girl) ; and,  only  think  of  it,  you  may  become 
“ Frat.  girls  ! ” But,  if  you  find  yourselves  still  dissatisfied 
with  your  high  privileges,  and  Avith  your  connection  with 
this  theme, let  me  commend  to  you, dear  women, these  touch- 


b 


ing  words  of  comfort  of  Albert  G.  Mackey,  Past  General 
Grand  High  Priest  and  Secretary  General  of  the  Su- 
preme Council,  33d,  for  the  Southern  Jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  : “ As  they  [women]  worked  not  at  the  tem- 
ple, neither  can  they  work  with  us.  But  we  love  and 

cherish  them  none  the  less And  while  we  know  that 

woman’s  smile,  like  the  mild  beams  of  an  April  sun,  re- 
flects a brighter  splendor  on  the  light  of  prosperity,  and 
warms  with  grateful  glow  the  chilliness  of  adversity,  we 
regret  not  the  less  deeply,  because  unavailingly,  that  no 
ray  of  that  sun  can  illume  the  recesses  of  our  lodge,  and 
call  our  weary  workmen  from  their  labors  to  refresh- 
ment ! ” 1 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  SECRET  SOCIETIES. 

Returning  to  our  theme,  it  Ought  frankly  to  be  said, 
that  the  subject  is  intended  to  embrace  all  societies,  of 
whatever  kind,  that  have  the  element  of  secrecy  as  an  es- 
sential part  of  their  constitution.  Yet  it  is  at  once  al- 
lowed, and  emphatically  asserted,  that  secret  societies  dif- 
fer widety  in  aim,  and  in  the  character  of  their  membership, 
and  that  they  have  all  degrees  of  secrecy.  They  are  not 
all  to  be  sweepingly  embraced  under  the  same  judgment. 
There  are  those  which  have  only  insurance  in  view, 
whose  oaths  and  secrecy  are  intended  chiefly  better  to  se- 
cure the  pa)^ment  of  dues,  and  concern  only  this  business 
of  the  order.  Such  are  the  Royal  Arcanum  and  the  Amer- 
ican Legion  of  Honor.  There  are  those  organized  for 
professed  temperance  and  social  purposes,  whose  secrecy 
is  thought  to  be  useful  to  the  work  proposed  by  the  order  ; 
such  are  the  Good  Templars,  and  the  earlier  Sons  of  Tem- 
perance. There  are  others  with  alleged  patriotic 
aims,  in  which  no  great  stress  is  laid  on  the  secret  charac- 
ter of  the  order,  such  as  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Repub- 
lic, the  Sons  of  Veterans,  and  the  Union  Veterans’  Union. 
Still  other  orders  are  based  on  class  or  business  inter- 
ests, with  a more  or  less  strong  social  element.  In  these,, 

1 Mackey,  Lexicon.  Article,  Woman. 


7 


the  secrecy  is  thought  to  be  somewhat  essential. to  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  aims  of  the  society.  Such  orders  are  the  Patrons 
of  Husbandry,  Order  of  Locomotive  Engineers,  and  the 
more  inclusive  Knights  of  Labor.  Some  of  the  most 
important  orders,  it  is  difficult  accurately  to  classify  ; for 
they  are  loltily  said  to  be  “ intended  to  disseminate  the 
great  principles  of  friendship,  charity,  and  benevolence.” 
Thev  have  a kind  of  moral,  more  or  less  religious  and  so- 
cial character,  with  aims  of  relief  of  their  members,  and 
with  much  more  formidable  oaths.  Such  are  the  Free- 
masons and  the  Odd  Fellows,  and  the  similar,  but  much 
less  important  order,  Knights  of  Pythias.  Orders 
with  distinctly  political  aims,  whether  or  not  avowed, 
have  been  the  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle,  Ku  Klux 
Klan  or  Invisible  Empire,  the  Clan-na-Gael  or  United 
Brotherhood,  and  the  Molly  Maguires  or  Ancient  Order 
of  Hibernians,  who  perpetrated  the  well  known  outrages 
in  Pennsylvania.  How  far  a secret  society  may  vary 
from  its  alleged  aims  is  well  illustrated  by  the  fact  that 
the  avowed  desire  of  the  last  named  society  was  simply 
to  “promote  friendship  among  the  Irish  Catholics,  and 
especially  to  assist  one  another  in  trade.”  One  fur- 
ther class,  quite  distinct,  and  not  to  be  farther  considered, 
religious  and  political,  include  the  Jesuits,  and  Mormons 
that  have  taken  the  Endowment  House  oaths. 

Such  a survey,  which  ma}^  help  us  to  understand  the 
extent  of  the  secret  lodge  movement,  must  make  it  evi- 
dent that  a detailed  examination  of  different  orders  is  im- 
possible ; nor  is  it  necessary.  We  need  only  examine  the 
claims  of  the  most  boastful  of  all,  Freemasonry,  as  the 
oldest  of  all  mentioned  (except  the  Jesuits),  the  largest, 
and  most  conspicuous,  and  the  practical  mother  of  all  the 
rest;  involving  other  societies  in  her  condemnation  only 
so  far  as  they  are  like  her,  and  considering  more  carefully 
the  element  of  secrecy,  as  common  to  all ; adverting  inci- 
dentally to  College  Fraternities. 

Freemasonry  claims  to  be  the  “ M}^stic  Tie,”  “that  sa- 


8 


cred  and  inviolable  bond  which  unites  men  of  the  most 
discordant  opinions  into  one  band  of  brethren,  which 
gives  but  one  language  to  men  of  all  nations,  and  one 
altar  to  men  of  all  religions.”2  Masonry  claims  besides 
to  be  the  guardian  of  most  “valuable”  and  “sacred” 
“ traditions  and  esoteric  doctrines,”  whose  sacred  and  val- 
uable character  demand  the  protection  of  absolute  se- 
crecy. These  may  be  approached  only  through  solemn 
ceremonies  and  awe-inspiring  oaths. 

The  important  claims  of  the  secret  orders  may  perhaps 
be  summed  up  in  these : (i)  Freemasonry,  in  particular, 
claims  antiquity.  (2)  In  common  with  most  of  the  or- 
ders, it  claims  to  possess  certain  secrets.  (3)  The  lodges 
claim  to  be  justified  by  the  membership  of  good  men. 

(4)  They  commonly  claim  to  be  benevolent  societies. 

(5)  They  claim  to  be  moral  institutions,  with  only  benefi- 
cent effects  on  society  and  on  the  individual.  Can  these 
claims  be  justified  ? 

THE  CLAIM  TO  ANTIQUITY. 

By  virtue  of  her  pretended  traditions,  and  in  spite  of  her 
own  historians,  even  late  Masonic  authors  and  magazines 
continually  assume  Freemasonry’s  great  antiquity  ; and  the 
“ lectures”  and  “ charges”  are  full  of  the  most  marvellous 
information  concerning  Enoch,  a “ very  eminent  Freemas- 
on ; ” Peleg,  who,  you  may  not  know,  was  “ chief  archi- 
tect of  the  tower  of  Babel,”  and  the  special  progenitor  of 
the  2 1 st  degree;  Solomon,  in  remembrance  of  whose 
lodgery  the  seat  of  the  Worshipful  Master  is  called  the 
“Oriental  Chair  of  Solomon;”  Hiram,  “the  widow’s 
son,”  so  touchingly  commemorated  in  the  Master’s  de- 
gree, etc.  Mackey,  as  late  as  1872,  still  allows  this  state- 
ment to  stand  : “ Freemasonry  is  in  its  principles  undoubt- 
edly coeval  with  creation ; but  in  its  organization,  as  a pe- 
culiar institution,  such  as  it  now  exists,  we  dare  not  trace 
it  further  back  than  to  the  building  of  King  Solomon’s 

2 Mackey,  Lexicon.  Article,  Mystic  Tie. 


9 


Temple.”  The  article  in  Johnson’s  Cyclopedia,  signed 
by  a Mason,  still  virtually  makes  the  same  claim. 

Happily  we  may  soon  have  done  with  all  this  nonsense 
as  to  the  antiquity  of  Freemasonry.  For  the  time  has 
come  when  we  may  speak  without  hesitation  as  to  the  his- 
toric origin  of  this  order  The  best  Masonic,  as  well  as 
other,  historians  agree  in  the  matter.  The  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  unhesitatingly  places  the  origin  of  Speculative 
Freemasonry  in  London,  June  24,  1717.  Hughan,  the  Ma- 
sonic historian,  says:  “ Previous  to  i860,  Freemasons,  gen- 
erally speaking,  believed  the  ceremonies  and  secrets  of 
the  then  craft  degrees  had  existed  for  hundreds  or  thou- 
sands of  years,  the  majority  dating  from  the  building  of 
Solomon’s  Temple.  It  was  difficult  to  prove  this  on  doc- 
umentary evidence,  but  the  excuse  was  ever  ready  that 
the  documents  were  lost.  It  so  happens,  however,  that 
modern  research  has  discovered  many  of  the  old  records, 
and  the  old  Masonic  charges;  and  the  old  lodge  minutes, 
written  long  before,  and  up  to  1717,  prove  that  up  to  that 
date,  modern  Fremasonry  and  our  system  of  degrees  did 
not  exist.”  Steinbrenner,  another  Masonic  historian, 
agrees  in  this  same  date,  1717.  The  only  claim  Freema- 
sonry has  to  any  earlier  date  lies  in  its  connection  with 
guilds  of  working  masons,  “ the  mediasvial  building  corpo- 
rations,” which  were  absolutely  without  degrees.  The 
claim  to  any  other  antiquity  is  pure  humbug.  Dr.  Dal- 
cho,  a Mason  of  thirty-three  degrees,  and  the  compiler  of 
the  Masonic  Constitutions  of  South  Carolina,  says  that 
this  claim  to  antiquity  “ may  make  the  vulgar  stare,  but 
will  rather  excite  the  contempt  than  the  admiration  of  the 
wise.”  Notwithstanding  this  verdict  of  their  own  histori- 
ans, it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  all  Masonic  books  teem 
with  these  old  fictitious  legends.  And  there  is  not  a 
single  degree  of  the  entire  nine  degrees  of  the  American 
Rite,  nor  of  the  thirty-three  degrees  of  the  Ancient  and 
Accepted  Scottish  Rite,  (with  possibly  two  exceptions) 
which  does  not  make  expressed  or  implied  reference  to 


IO 


these  tying  legends ; in  the  great  majority  of  cases  the 
very  ceremonies  and  lectures  of  the  degree  being  expressly 
founded  upon  the  legend.  Masonry  thus  is  in  the  peculiar 
position  of  being  utterly  repudiated  by  its  own  historic 
authorities  as  to  the  historic  claims  made  in  every  de- 
gree. It  can  retain  its  degrees  at  all,  with  any  show  of 
reason,  only  by  allegorizing  all  its  long-claimed  traditions, 
and  becoming  a farce  of  farces. 

The  development  of  the  complex  modern  system  of 
the  degrees  of  so-called  Masonry  may  be  very  briefly 
stated.  The  original  London  rite  becomes  united  with  the 
schismatic  York  rite,  in  what  is  now  commonly  called  the 
Ancient  York  Rite,  “ consisting  of  the  three  degrees  of 
Entered  Apprentice,  Fellow  Craft,  and  Master  Mason,  in- 
cluding as  a part  of  the  last  the  Holy  Royal  Arch.”  This, 
Mackey  says,  is  “the  mother  of  all  the  other  rites,  which 
are  but  developments  of  its  simple  system.”3  Ameri- 
cans, under  Webb’s  lead,  separated  the  Royal  Arch  degree 
and  made  nine  degrees,  constituting  what  is  called  The 
American  Rite.  The  so-called  “ Ancient  and  Accepted 
Scottish  Rite”  is  not  Scottish  at  all,  but  the  combined 
product  chiefly  of  American  and  French  invention.  In 
1804,  there  appeared  in  France  the  Rite  of  Mizraim,  of  90 
degrees.  And  to  meet  all  possible  ambitions,  as  a climax 
of  absurdities,  there  now  exists  in  America  the  “ Sover- 
eign Sanctuary  of  the  Royal  or  Egyptian  Masonic  Rite,” 
conferring  96  degrees.  There  has  been  no  lack  of 
Rites  besides  these ; that  cannot  be  even  mentioned. 
Concerning  all  the  higher  degrees,  Mackey,  Masonic 
authority  it  will  be  remembered,  makes  this  eminently  just 
remark:  “The  ingenuity  of  some  and  the  vanity  of  oth- 
ers have  added  to  these  [i.  e.  the  three  degrees  of  the 
York  Rite]  an  infinite  number  of  high  degrees  and  of 
ceremonies  unknown  to  the  original  character  of  the  in- 
stitution.”4 Reference  to  the  Britannica  will  show  the 
humbugging  origin  of  all  these  degrees. 

3 Mackey,  Lexicon.  Article,  York  Rite.  4 Mackey,  Lexicon,  pp.  412-412. 


The  eight  degrees  of  the  Knight  Templars,  three  given 
in  a Commandery  and  five  in  a Council  of  the  Trinity, 
are  of  equally  fragile  origin,  but  are  in  strictness  to  be 
distinguished  from  Freemasonry  proper.  Their  close 
connection  with  Freemasonry  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
are  only  given  as  appendages  to  the  Masonic  Rites. 

The  history  of  other  secret  orders  is  similar.  They 
have  very  commonly  been  founded  by  Freemasons,  as 
were  the  Grange  and  the  Clan-na-Gael  for  example,  and 
their  oaths  and  ceremonies  are  closely  patterned  after 
those  of  Masonry. 

So  much  for  the  Masonic  claim  to  antiquity. 

THE  CLAIM  TO  SECRECY. 

The  secrets  of  Masonry  are  no  secrets.  What  are  the 
evidences? 

To  begin  with,  we  have  such  openly  published  books 
by  Masonic  authors,  as  Chase’s  “ Digest  of  Masonic  Law," 
Mackey’s  “ Lexicon  of  Freemasonry,’’  and  “ Text  Book  of 
Masonic  Jurisprudence,’’  Webb’s  “ Freemason’s  Monitor,” 
etc.  Such  books  give  the  Masonic  claims,  Masonic  usages, 
Grand  Lodge  rulings,  Masonic  traditions,  and  connec- 
tions with  the  ancient  mysteries,  and  incidentally  shed  not 
a little  light  on  the  real  character  of  the  order — much 
more  light  to  the  careful  observer,  I am  persuaded,  than 
even  their  authors  realized,  and  confirming  in  minute  par- 
ticulars professed  expositions  of  the  order. 

Of  these  expositions  there  have  been  no  lack,  and 
the  evidences  are  convincing.  Prichard’s  “ Masonry  Dis- 
sected,” appearing  as  early  as  1730,  gave  the  first  three 
degrees  of  Masonry — all  that  then  existed.  The  later 
book,  “Jachin  and  Boaz,”  gives  more  elaborately  the 
same  degrees.  William  Morgan’s  “ Illustrations  of  Ma- 
sonry,” manifestly  independent,  testified  to  the  same  facts. 
A convention  of  seceding  Masons,  thirty -five  in  number, 
held  in  Le  Roy,  New  York,  February  19-20,  1828,  nearly 
a year  and  a half  after  Morgan’s  death,  gave  the  first  seven 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


12 


degrees.  An  adjourned  meeting  of  the  above  convention, 
attended  by  8,000  persons,  met  July  4-5,  1828,  at  Le  Roy, 
at  which  one  hundred  and  three  seceding  Masons,  dele- 
gates from  ten  counties,  and  holding  degrees  from  the 
first  to  the  twenty-first,  signed  a “Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence from  Masonry,”  in  which  they  gave  in  addition 
the  eight  degrees  of  the  Knight  Templars. 

Rev.  Moses  Thacher,  himself  formerly  a Mason,  is  au- 
thority for  the  statement  that  in  1829  at  least  five  hun- 
dred seceding  Masons  of  different  degrees,  and  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  country,  had  openly  confirmed  Morgan 
and  the  disclosures  at  Le  Roy.  The  written  renuncia- 
tions of  thirty-six  such,  including  prominent  men  and 
clergymen,  were  published  in  1830. 

There  is  the  further  unspoken  witness  of  those  who 
left  the  lodge  from  that  time  on,  of  whom  my  grandfather 
was  one.  Upon  the  authority  of  Robert  Morris,  LL.  D., 
an  ex-president  of  a western  college,  an  adhering  Mason, 
and  called  the  poet  laureate  of  Masonry,  it  is  said,  that 
45,000  of  the  50,000  Masons  of  Morgan’s  day  left  the  lodges 
to  return  to  them  no  more,  and  that  1,500  lodges  gave 
up  their  charters. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  most  important  oaths  have  been 
at  least  four  times  sworn  to  in  open  court  by  adher- 
ing Masons.  For  example,  adhering  Masons  swore  to  the 
oaths,  including  the  Royal  Arch  oath,  with  its  “ murder 
and  treason  not  accepted,”  before  the  court  of  Chenango 
Co.,  N Y.  And  testimony  of  adhering  Masons  was  given 
before  a committee  of  the  Rhode  Island  legislature,  to 
the  oaths  of  the  first  ten  degrees  of  Masonry. 

Bernard,  himself  a seceding  Mason,  summed  up  the 
evidence  of  this  period  in  his  “ Light  on  Masonry,”  giving 
forty-eight  degrees.  Before  publication,  the  Royal  Arch 
degree  was  obtained  through  an  authentic  agent  directly 
from  Jeremy  L.  Cross,  Grand  Lecturer  of  U.  S.  ; the 
eight  Templar  degrees  from  an  authenticated  ritual,  and 
the  remainder  of  the  thirty-three  degrees  from  Dr.  Fred- 


:> 


erick  Dalcho,  Sovereign  Grand  Inspector  General.5 
Richardson  in  i860  gave  sixty-two  degrees. 

And  it  should  be  added,  that  the  first  seven  degrees 
have  been  sworn  to  anew  by  two  Michigan  seceding 
Masons,  who  themselves  had  taken  the  entire  seven,  as 
late  as  1879. 

Add  now  to  this,  other  late  renunciations,  and  the 
quiet  testimony  of  many  seceders,  like  Col.  Geo.  R. 
Clarke,  of  the  Pacific  Mission  of  Chicago,  who  had  had 
thirty-two  degrees  of  Masonry. 

And  finally  forget  not,  that  it  is  the  proudest  boast 
of  Masonry  that  she  does  not  change,  Mackey  says  : “ It 
is  not  in  the  power  of  any  body  of  men  to  make  innova- 
tions in  Masonry.”6  Abundant  further  evidence  of  the 
same  kind  could  be  quoted,  but  it  is  needless ; it  needs 
only  to  be  noticed  that  the  claimed  universal  character 
of  Masonry  is  dependent  on  its  being  unchanged. 

If  anything  can  be  established  by  human  testimony,  the 
oaths  and  secrets  of  Masonry,  as  they  were,  and  as  they 
are,  are  known  beyond  all  doubt.  I have  been  thus  partic- 
ular in  this  statement  of  evidence  (though  I have  given  but 
a part  of  it),  because  1 am  tired  and  disgusted  with  the 
simple  suggestion  often  made,  that  one  outside  knows 
nothing  of  masonry,  and  with  the  easy  credulity  that 
takes  a vague  and  general  denial  by  some  single  Ma- 
son, as  entirely  rebutting  this  piled  up  evidence  of  scores 
of  years,  and  of  thousands  of  men. 

But  to  prevent  misunderstanding  and  clear  away  some 
honest  difficulty,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  consider  more 
carefully  these  reputed  denials  of  adhering  Masons,  of 
which  so  much  is  made. 

THE  DENIALS  OF  ADHERING  MASONS. 

And  in  the  first  place,  notice  that  they  have  all  sol- 
emnly sworn , under  oaths  they  regard  as  binding,  “ ever 

5 See  Bernard’s  Preface. 

6 Mackey,  Lexicon.  Article,  Landmarks. 


14 


to  conceal,  never  to  reveal,”  the  secrets  of  Masonry. 
Now  what  is  the  Mason  who  is  questioned  directly  (if  he 
can  be  so  questioned)  concerning  the  accuracy  of  the  ex- 
positions, to  do?  If  he  should  admit  their  accuracy,  he 
believes  that  he  would  have  perjured  himself ; he  feels 
compelled,  therefore,  to  resort  to  evasion  or  subterfuge  if 
possible.  Now  I am  not  herein  impugning  the  honesty 
of  adhering  Masons.  I only  point  out  the  disagreeable 
dilemma  in  which  a Mason  is  put  in  the  single  time,  or 
two  or  three  times,  in  his  life,  in  which  he  is  confronted 
with  an  absolutely  explicit  question  (if,  again,  I say,  such 
can  be  put — which  I doubt)  concerning  the  expositions  of 
Masonry.  He  feels  himself  between  two  obligations,  of 
which  he  honestly  believes  the  obligation  of  his  oath  is 
the  more  binding. 

Moreover  there  is  a further  convenient  subterfuge. 
There  have  been  some  verbal  changes  and  different  ar- 
rangements of  phrases,  and  even  of  paragraphs,  since  Mor- 
gan’s time.  None  of  these  changes  affect  at  all  the  sense  ; 
but  they  make  it  possible  for  a man  to  say,  with  a show 
of  truth,  that  Morgan’s  exposition  was  not  correct ; or  that 
Freemasonry  is  different  now. 

Another  point  ought  to  be  made  clear.  President 
Finney  and  others,  who  have  written  upon  this  theme, 
bring  together  the  objectionable  points  of  many  degrees. 
Now  if  a Mason  is  questioned  concerning  any  one  of  these 
points,  as  to  whether  that  is  Masonry,  he  may  honestly 
answer — No,  so  far  as  his  knowledge  goes;  for  he  may  not 
have  taken  the  degree  in  which  the  point  of  objection  is 
involved.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  many  Masons  are 
much  less  intelligent  concerning  Masonry  than  many 
whose  knowledge  has  been  obtained  from  books.  Masons 
are  supposed  to  know  nothing  of  the  degrees  above  those 
they  have  themselves  taken,  and  many  proceed  but  a lit- 
tle way,  and  make  but  little  careful  study  even  ol  the  de- 
grees they  have  taken. 

It  may  be  further  noticed  that  President  Finney 


5 


and  others  make  much  of  certain  oaths  of  the  Templar 
degrees;  and  as  Knight  Templarism  is  in  strictness  to  be 
distinguished,  as  we  have  seen,  from  Freemasonry,  so  that 
one  might  have  taken  the  entire  thirty-three  degrees  of 
the  Scotch  Rite,  and  yet  had  none  of  the  Templar  de- 
grees, it  would  thus  be  easy  to  say  honestly,  that  Presi- 
dent Finney,  in  his  professed  exposition  of  Freemasonry, 
had  brought  in  much  not  in  Freemasonry  at  all. 

In  fact,  there  are  so  many  ways  of  possible  honest  mis- 
understanding, and  so  many  more  of  evasion  and  subter- 
fuge that  would  be  deemed  Masonically  justifiable  and 
necessary,  that  it  is  practically  impossible  so  to  frame  a 
question  as  to  be  sure  that  you  have  obtained  any  infor- 
mation whatever  from  an  adhering  Mason.  Their  gen- 
eral denials,  therefore,  of  the  truth  of  these  thousand  times 
proved  expositions,  ought  not  at  all  to  disturb  us.  The 
secrets  are  no  secrets.  You  may  have  the  secrets  of  all  the 
prominent  orders  for  a very  little  money  spent  in  books. 
Have  the  sense  to  look  up  the  secrets  before  you  join  any 
of  the  orders ; for  a miserable  lot  of  secrets  they  are. 

I might  almost  be  content  to  rest  the  case  here.  Ma- 
sonry has  been  revealed  and  Masonry,  as  revealed,  cannot 
be  defended.  And  the  other  orders  are  open  to  much 
the  same  charges. 

ADMISSIONS. 

Before  passing  to  the  discussion  of  the  other  claims  of 
the  lodges,  let  us  make  a number  of  plain  admissions,  that 
may  render  our  argument  less  cumbrous. 

There  are  doubtless  some  legitimate  demands  met 
in  these  multiplied  orders.  For  example,  the  demand  for 
something  to  do,  something  to  deliver  from  ennui , the  cry 
of  every  child,  “I  want  to  be  ’mused;”  the  demand  also 
for  fellowship,  some  close  fellowship,  a natural  and  most 
worthy  instinct.  It  is  natural  too  that,  in  a period  of 
great  combinations  and  of  severe  competition,  the  clash- 
ing of  class  interests  should  have  resulted  in  multiplied 
organizations,  though  the  very  multiplication  largely  de- 


i6 


stroys  the  benefit  of  any.  I can  quite  understand,  for 
example,  the  enthusiastic  hope  that  has  sometimes  gath- 
ered about  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  the  Patrons  of  Hus- 
bandry. But  none  of  these  demands  need  perpetual 
secrecy. 

I have  no  belief,  either,  that  there  is  in  any  or  all  of 
these  orders  any  general  conspiracy  against  society.  I 
frankly  confess  that  too  much  seems  to  me  often  to  have 
been  claimed  by  anti-secretists  in  this  respect. 

I have  already  said  that  I do  not  believe  that  the 
lodges  are  the  greatest  evil  of  the  times;  nor  that  they 
have  been  devoid  of  good  deeds. 

And  I further  freely  admit  that  there  have  been 
and  are  many,  very  many,  good  men  in  the  orders,  even 
in  the  worst  of  them  ; and,  moreover,  many  ambitious  and 
a very  few  great  men,  though  the  facts  show  that  very  few 
great  men  make  much  of  the  lodge.  If  they  are  eyer 
members,  they  - are  likely  to  withdraw  early,  as  Washing- 
ton did,  and  condemn  the  tendency  as  did  he. 

And  finally  I emphasize  again  that  very  great  dis- 
tinctions are  to  be  made  in  dealing  with  the  orders ; 
though  I shall  not  be  expected  to-day  to  mete  out  the  ap- 
propriate degrees  of  praise  and  blame. 

These  frank  and  hearty  admissions,  I hope,  may  indi- 
cate that  I mean  to  deal  temperately,  even  if  earnestly, 
with  my  subject;  and  before  passing  from  these  admis- 
sions, in  the  interests  of  a fair  discussion  of  this  perplexing 
question,  I wish  to  remind  you  of  an  important  inference 
to  be  drawn  from  one  of  these  admissions,  but  an  infer- 
ence that  is  frequently  overlooked  by  the  zealous  reformer. 
There  are  good  men  in  the  lodge,  loyal  Christian  men. 
One  such  man,  who  afterward  renounced  Masonry,  said : 
“ Allow  me  to  say  that  there  are  thousands  of  Masons  who 
have  taken  the  Master’s  degree,  that  are  deceived  as  to 
the  true  object  and  teachings  of  the  order.  I was  just  as 
honest,  while  a member  of  thes'L  orders,  as  it  regards  loy- 
alty to  God  and  his  cause  as  now.”  This  simple  testimony, 


that  might  be  confirmed  by  others,  carries  an  important 
inference  that  we  cannot  too  carefully  remember.  Every 
year  of  thought,  of  experience,  and  of  observation  will 
convince  one  that  nothing  is  so  certain  concerning  men  as 
that  they  are  bundles  of  contradictions.  They  hold  with- 
out difficulty  in  the  same  mind  principles  mutually  con- 
tradictory, if  they  only  knew  it ; their  principles  and  ap- 
plications are  very  wide  apart.  In  short  they  are  not  log- 
ical at  all.  Christian  men  are  to  be  found  on  all  sides  of 
even  the  questions  seeming  most  clear.  It  is  the  mis- 
take of  the  reformer  to  suppose,  that  a man  is  as  wicked 
as  he  logically  ought  to  be,  holding  the  principles  or  opin- 
ions he  does.  The  inference  then  is  just  this.  In  point  of 
fact,  Masonry  and  the  whole  lodge  system  are  much  less 
dangerous  than  they  logically  ought  to  be,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  men  who  are  in  the  lodges  are  not  logical, 
and  consequently  do  not  believe  or  mean  half  of  what 
they  say.  This  is  very  far  from  saying  what  I shall  doubt- 
less seem  to  many  careless  thinkers  to  have  said,  that  it 
makes  no  difference  what  a man  believes.  The  point  is, 
that  most  men  think  so  little  as  to  their  beliefs,  that  they 
do  not  really  believe  what  they  say  they  believe.  It  is 
not  said,  your  creed  has  no  effect  on  you;  but  you  are 
probably  much  better  or  much  worse  than  your  creed.  I 
believe  that  the  institution  of  Freemasonry  is  detestable, 
and  that  the  very  organization  tends  to  affect  society  un- 
favorably, and  is  practically  certain  more  or  less  to  affect 
its  members  for  evil  ; but  I believe  quite  as  strongly  that 
probably  the  great  majority  of  its  members  have  done  so 
little  clear  logical  thinking  upon  the  lodge,  though  some 
have  studied  it  after  a fashion  most  of  their  lives,  that 
they  practically  do  not  know  what  it  is,  or  what  its  oaths 
and  ceremonies  mean;  and  many  good  Christian  men  find 
Christianity  in  all  of  it.  This  ought  not  to  make  us  less 
severe  in  our  strictures  on  the  institution  itself;  but  it 
may  give  us  more  charity  for  men  and  more  hope  for  the 
world. 

What  now  as  to  the 


i8 


CLAIM  OF  THE  LODGES  TO  BE  JUSTIFIED  BY  THE  MEM- 
BERSHIP OF  GOOD  MEN  ? 

This  persistent  claim  needs  careful  and  honest  consid- 
eration. The  presence  of  good  men  in  an  order  does  not 
prove  the  order  good.  But  we  ought  to  be  able  to  ex- 
plain their  presence.  We  have  already  seen  one  large 
explanation  of  the  presence  of  good  men  in  these  orders, 
namely : few  men  think  of  the  logical  meaning  of  their 
acts. 

It  may  also  be  added,  that  there  are  many  men  of  a 
naturally  religious  temperament,  and  with  a natural  love 
of  solemn  ceremonial.  Every  solemn  awe-struck  feeling  is 
to  them  religious.  Being  scared  is  a religious  emotion. 
Now  the  ceremonies  of  Masonry,  for  example,  furnish 
abundant  occasion  for  such  emotions,  and  as  most  men 
judge  more  by  their  feelings  than  by  thoughts  or  pur- 
poses, Masonry  seems  to  them  genuinely  and  helpfully  re- 
ligious; if  they  are  Christians,  it  seems  Christian.  We 
need  not  marvel  at  this,  so  long  as  most  Christians  de- 
mand an  evidence  of  feeling  in  conversion. 

Many  more  men  are  mildly  imaginative.  Without  great 
intellect,  but  with  a little  practice,  they  see  symbols  in  ev- 
erything. “ So  it  is  in  the  moral  world  ” is  the  constant 
refrain  of  every  observation.  They  revel  in  Swedenbor- 
gian  interpretations  of  the  most  matter-of-fact  things. 
They  interpret  everything.  Now  to  such  minds,  Masonry 
and  its  kindred  orders,  with  their  conglomerate  of  sym- 
bols and  myths,  are  likely  to  seem  a veritable  god-send. 
All  elements  are  welcome  alike  to  such  minds.  Adam, 
Noah,  Peleg,  Solomon,  Hiram,  Adoniram,  Pythagoras, 
numbers,  sun,  moon  and  stars,  astrology,  ark  of  Noah,  ark 
of  the  covenant,  Temple  and  Tabernacle,  the  pillars  at  the 
door  of  the  temple,  the  curtains  of  the  tabernacle  and  all  its 
ornaments,  the  orders  of  architecture,  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet,  the  Eleusinian  mysteries,  the  Orphic  mysteries, 
the  mysteries  of  Osiris,  of  Isis,  and  of  Bacchus,  parallel 


l9 


lines,  the  triangle  and  the  square,  the  compass,  the  mallet 
and  the  setting  maul,  the  trowel,  the  shovel,  the  crow  and 
the  pickaxe,  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  St.  John  the 
Baptist  (whom  the  two  parallel  lines  on  the  floor  of 
American  lodges  represent) — all  are  alike  radiant  with 
meaning:,  and  contain  marvellous  revelations.  Now  it  is 
manifest  that,  in  such  a system,  the  meaning  is  largely  de- 
termined by  the  mind.  And  the  Christian  man,  with  a tem- 
perament such  as  I have  described,  who  very  likely  reads 
his  Bible  in  much  the  same  fashion,  will  be  likely  to  find 
in  his  Freemasonry  nothing  unchristian. 

But  aside  from  these  natural  explanations  of  how  good 
men  remain  undisturbed  in  these  orders,  a thinking  man 
may  convince  himself  in  a moment  that  it  is  impossible  to 
provean  institution  good  by  the  support  of  good  men.  If 
so,  slavery  is  good ; caste  is  good  ; the  saloon  is  good. 

Carry  the  principle  a moment  into  political  parties. 
Think  of  the  other  party — the  one  to  which  you  do  not 
belong.  Does  the  presence  of  good  men  in  that  other 
party  make  the  party  good,  does  it  make  party  action 
good?  Are  not  good  men,  and  the  more  easily  because 
they  are  good  men  and  unsuspicious,  perpetually  hood- 
winked as  to  the  real  aim  of  the  party  policy — not  in  your 
party,  of  course,  but  in  the  other  one?  Is  there  not  a nat- 
ural tendency  that  ambitious  and  unprincipled  men  will 
run  the  party  machine? 

Now  these  natural  tendencies,  in  political  parties,  to  re- 
duce the  influence  of  the  best  men  in  the  party  to  a min- 
nimum  are  greatly  augmented  in  the  stronger  secret  soci- 
eties for  various  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  good  men  are 
the  most  likely  to  become  dissatisfied  with  the  order,  and 
fail  to  go  on  with  their  degrees  ; but  in  Freemasonry,  for 
example,  a man  has  no  vote  until  he  has  taken  the  third 
degree,  and  no  right  even  of  debate  until  he  has  taken  the 
second  degree.  Moreover,  careful  observation  by  com- 
petent men,  extended  through  a series  of  years,  indi- 
cates that  only  about  one  member  in  five  attends  the 


20 


meetings  of  his  lodge  with  any  regularity.  Who  is 
more  likely  to  stay  away  than  the  sensible  Christian 
man,  dissatisfied  with  his  lodge.  Remember  also,  that 
the  higher  degrees  are  secret  trom  the  lower ; and 
transactions  in  them  are  quite  beyond  the  control  of 
all  members  of  lower  degrees.  Remember,  too,  that 
the  Master  and  the  Grand  Lodge  claim  absolute  au- 
thority ; and  that  the  candidate  has  sworn  obedience  to 
his  Masonic  authorities ; and  even  when  disgusted,  as 
were  the  45,000  in  Morgan’s  time,  commonly  regards 
himself  as  bound  by  his  oath,  and  hence  remains  quiet  and 
powerless,  even  when  he  believes  things  are  wrong.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  imagine  a plan  more  likely  to  reduce 
the  influence  of  the  better  and  greater  men  to  a mini- 
mum than  the  constitution  of  most  secret  societies.  The 
only  saving  element  is  found  in  the  natural  characteris- 
tics , which  have  been  noted,  of  many  good  men,  which 
make  them  wish  to  go  on  in  the  foolish  degrees  of  lodge 
wisdom,  and  which  enable  them  to  find  good  in  even  so 
barren  a waste. 

The  presence  of  good  men  emphatically  does  not  prove 
the  orders  good. 

Is  the 

CLAIM  TO  BENEVOLENCE 

better  founded?  None  of  the  secret  lodges  are  benevo- 
lent societies  at  all,  in  any  proper  meaning  of  that  term. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  by  the  very 
terms  of  their  constitution,  their  benefits  are  absolutely 
confined  to  their  own  members.  They  talk  much  of  the 
“brotherhood  of  humanity;”  but  the  brotherhood  they 
form  is  an  absolutely  exclusive  brotherhood,  whose  ben- 
efits, whatever  they  are,  largely  lie  in  its  exclusiveness. 
The  close  fellowship,  often  urged,  means  simply  that  their 
oaths  put  them  under  peculiar  and  special  obligations  one 
to  another,  not  merely  for  help  in  character,  but  for  giv- 
ing the  privileges  of  partiality  ; and  the  privileges  of  a so- 
ciety that  mean  real  partiality  to  its  members  in  the  gen- 


21 


eral  affairs  of  life,  that  are  intended  to  further  class  inter- 
ests as  distinguished  from  those  of  society  in  general,  not 
only  do  not  look  to  a brotherhood  of  humanity,  but  op- 
pose it  mightily.  The  argument  commonly  urged  for 
joining  the  lodge  is  a selfish  commercial,  social,  or  politi- 
cal one.  There  cannot  be  the  slightest  question  that  they 
are  deliberately  used  to  aid  to  preferment.  A single  fact 
may  indicate  this.  Very  careful  and  extensiye  inquiry, 
involving  the  sending  out  of  thousands  of  blanks,  reveals 
the  fact  that  three-fourths  of  all  public  officials  in  the 
United  States  are  members  of  secret  orders.  Does  any 
one  suppose  that  that  is  the  result  of  the  peculiarly  supe- 
rior quality  of  lodge  members?  It  is  true,  happily,  that 
there  are  always  a number  of  manly  independent  spirits, 
who  scorn  such  means,  and  reach  the  highest  positions 
with  no  such  help. 

The  spirit  of  the  lodge  is,  the  vulgar  self  seeking  spirit. 
It  is  as  far  as  possible  removed  from  the  manly  spirit, 
that  knows  that  all  true  growth,  even  for  self,  is  in  the 
outgo  not  in  the  income,  in  giving  not  in  receiving,  and 
that  seeks  a constantly  broadening  purpose  toward  all 
men.  From  any  point  of  view  the  same  selfish  spirit  of 
the  lodge  is  to  be  seen.  Freemasonry  claims,  for  exam- 
ple, to  possess  valuable  knowledge  in  its  secrets. 
To  begin  with,  its  secrets  are  not  secrets;  this  then 
is  humbuggery.  Further,  the  claimed  secret  knowl- 
edge is  made  up  of  invention  and  falsehood  ; this  is  quack- 
ery. And  in  the  third  place,  if  it  had  any  valuable  knowl- 
edge it  ought  to  publish  it  for  the  benefit  of  mankind  ; it 
does  not — this  is  “patent  medicine.”  Joseph  Cook  might 
well  say,  “ I do  abhor  the  selfish,  clannish  spirit  of  secret 
societies.” 

Indeed,  the  claim  of  the  lodges  to  be  regarded  as 
benevolent  societies,  has  been  decided  for  us  by  the  courts 
of  not  less  than  seven  states.  A recent  Maine  decision 
runs:  “ It  (Freemasonry)  is  a society  for  mutual  benefit 
and  protection,  and  the  ends  to  be  attained  are  private 


22 


and  personal,  not  public.  ...  It  is  apparent  that  defend- 
ant corporation  cannot  be  regarded  as  a purely  charitable 
institution,  because  it  wants  the  essential  elements  of  a 
public  charity.”  These  decisions  apply  with  equal  force 
to  all  other  secret  orders. 

If  what  the  lodges  do  for  the  families  of  members 
be  urged,  it  need  only  be  said  that  this  is  simply 
of  the  nature  of  a return  in  the  way  of  insurance  for  due’s 
paid.  And  in  the  case  of  Freemasonry  and  Odd  Fellow- 
ship often  a very  poor  return.  Often  the  chief  thing  in- 
sured seems  to  be  a showy  funeral.  Only  members  who 
have  taken  the  third  degree  and  have  kept  up  their  dues,, 
are  entitled  to  Masonic  burial,  or  to  relief  for  their  fami- 
lies. The  testimony  of  insurance  commissioners  is  suffi- 
ciently emphatic  as  to  the  poor  quality  of  insurance  given 
by  far  the  largest  majority  of  all  these  secret  orders.  And 
their  own  reports  tell  the  same  story.  Long  watching  of 
these  reports,  even  including  those  of  societies  making  a 
specialty  of  relief,  shows  that,  on  the  average,  only  about 
one-third  of  the  funds  contributed  go  to  relief.  A per- 
sonal letter  from  a friend,  a Mason  of  forty  years  standing 
and  who  has  taken  thirty-three  degrees,  says:  “I  do  not 
think  it  a help  in  a financial  way.” 

If  anything  more  were  needed  to  show  the  hollow 
character  of  the  claims  of  the  lodges  to  benevolence,  the 
pitiful  little  showing  Mackey  is  able  to  make  for  the  so- 
called  benevolences  of  the  oldest  of  them  all,  Masonry,, 
ought  to  settle  the  question.  He  has  no  difficulty  in  re- 
counting with  some  detail  all  the  prominent  benevolent 
institutions  of  Masonry  in  the  world,  on  a mere  page  and 
a half ; and  these  are  exclusively  for  Masonic  families. 
There  are  only  ten  such  institutions  that  he  considers 
worth  naming,  the  world  over,  after  the  order  had  ex- 
isted one  hundred  and  fifty  years  and  reached  a member- 
ship of  some  million  men.  Even  his  Southern  rhetoric 
cannot  make  up  for  such  a beggarly  showing ; though  he 
adds  ecstatically  : “ Relief  the  column  of  beauty,  whose  or- 


23 


naments,  more  precious  than  the  lillies  and  pomegranates 
that  adorned  the  pillars  of  the  porch, are  the  widow’s  tear  of 
joy  and  the  orphan’s  prayer  of  gratitude.”  To  the  unma- 
sonic  mind  it  would  seem  that  these  beautiful  ornaments 
might  be  better  secured  by  an  entirely  prosaic  but  sound 
life  insurance  policy. 

The  lodges  have  no  claim  to  be  considered  benevolent 
societies. 

THE  PUERILITY  OF  THE  LODGES. 

Permit  me  to  turn  aside  a moment  from  the  course  of 
my  argument  to  note  the  childishness  of  the  whole  lodge 
system.  There  is  so  much  of  the  child  in  us  all,  that  in 
their  childishness  lies  a great  part  of  the  attractiveness  of 
the  lodges. 

The  secret  lodge  furnishes  the  opportunity  for  the  grat- 
ification of  all  those  suppressed  longings  of  our  childhood, 
the  longing  to  belong  to  something,  and  to  be  able  to  say, 
“ I know  something  that  you  don’t,  and  I sha’nt  tell 
the  longingto  wear  a hieroglyphic  badge;  the  longing  to 
run  an  institution  with  grips  and  signs  and  pass-words;  the 
love  of  fuss  and  feathers — of  parading  with  full  regalia  and 
pewter  swords;  the  longing  after  sounding  titles — Wor- 
shipful Master,  Sir  Knight,  Sublime  Prince  of  the  Royal 
Secret.  All  these  longings  the  lodge  can  satisfy.  One  is 
reminded  of  the  cheerful  little  ditty  in  “One  Summer”: 

“And  simple 

Childish  joys,  and  strings, 

And  strings.” 

And  what  a splendid  obituary  it  makes.  Plere  is  a genu- 
ine record  : John  Christie,  Past  Worshipful  Grand  Mas- 
Master  of  N.  IT.;  Past  Master  of  St.  Andrew’s  and  St.  John’s 
Lodges;  Past  High  Priest  of  Washington  Chapter;  Past 
Grand  High  Priest  and  Grand  Rajah  of  Arch  Chapter, 
State  of  N.  H.;  Past  Right  Eminent  Grand  Commander 
of  the  Grand  Commandery  of  the  State  ; the  oldest  active 
member  of  the  thirty-third  degree  of  the  Ancient  and  Ac- 
cepted Scottish  Rite — is  dead.  Peace  to  his  ashes. 


24 


If  this  is  not  childish  enough,  the  oaths  and  ceremonies 
of  the  lodges,  including  those  of  the  college  fraternities, fur- 
nish enough  more.  But  I shall  not  degrade  myself  by  de- 
scribing the  Masonic  oaths  and  their  horrid  penalties, 
nor  the  ridiculous  plight  in  which  Masonry  puts  the  candi- 
dates for  its  degrees.  The  necessary  silliness  of  a full  ex- 
posure of  the  silliness  of  the  lodge  reacts  upon  the  ex- 
poser. I am  content  to  say  that,  though  I have  no  idea 
that  Masons  mean  all  the  ridiculous  and  horrible  rigma- 
role they  go  through,  yet,  even  on  this  charitable  judg- 
ment, careful  study  cannot  make  this  rigmarole  less  than 
what  a plain  man  might  call  “ infernal  nonsense.” 

Remembering  its  mythical  history,  its  multiplied  and 
cheap  degrees,  its  sounding  titles,  its  smart  processions 
and  regalia,  its  foolish  secrets,  its  absurd  claims,  and  the 
tomfoolery  of  its  oaths  and  ceremonies,  can  you  wonder 
that  John  Wesley  exclaimed  : “ What  an  amazing  banter 

upon  mankind  is  Freemasonry.”  The  infinite  activity  of 
the  lodges  is  suited  to  recall  Lewis  Carroll’s  revised  ver- 
sion of  “ How  doth  the  little  busy  bee 

“ How  doth  the  little  crocodile 
Improve  his  shining  tail, 

And  pour  the  waters  of  the  Nile 
On  every  golden  scale. 

How  cheerfully  he  seems  to  grin, 

How  neatly  spread  his  claws, 

And  welcome  little  fishes  in, 

With  gently  smiling  jaws.’ 

Or  they  are  like  a more  ill-natured  Cheshire  cat,  forever 
impishly  grinning  at  the  “infinite  gullibility”  of  mankind. 
“ What  fools  these  mortals  be.” 

Can  the  final 

CLAIM  OF  THE  LODGES  TO  BE  MORAL  INSTITUTIONS, 

with  only  beneficent  effects  on  society  and  the  individual 
be  justified  ? 

Their  distinctive  element,  secrecy,  is  itself  evil,  and 
tends  to  evil. 


25 


We  may  readily  admit  that  a certain  degree  of  secrecy, 
or  privacy  rather,  in  one’s  affairs  is  justifiable.  But  all  se- 
crecy should  have  a reason  ; should  not  be  needlessly  em- 
ployed; should  be  limited  severely;  and  should  be  tempo- 
rary only. 

The  burden  of  proof  in  the  matter  rests  on  the  socie- 
ties themselves.  There  should  be  some  very  good  reason 
why  a society  of  any  kind  whatever  should  claim  a se- 
crecy, practically  unlimited  and  permanent,  and  so  far  as 
appears,  utterly  needless.  Secrecy  must  justify  itself.  Is 
there  any  good  reason?  if  so,  what?  if  not,  why  secret? 
What  good  object  needs  the  support  or  defence  of  perpet- 
ual secrecy  ? Exactly  what  of  good  is  offered  to  the  mem- 
bers of  a secret  society,  in  its  secrecy  ? 

Now  the  answers  of  the  secret  societies  to  these  in- 
quiries are  exceedingly  lame.  Webb’s  reply  is,  “Were 
the  privileges  of  Masonry  to  be  indiscriminately  bestowed, 
the  design  of  the  institution  Avould  be  subverted,  and,  be- 
ing familiar,  like  many  other  important  matters,  would 
soon  lose  their  value  and  sink  into  disregard.”7  Webb 
is  doubtless  correct  in  this  as  concerns  the  secrets  of 
Masonry.  They  would  have  no  attraction  if  not  se- 
cret. That  is,  the  secrecy  is  intended  as  a bait,  to  give 
a fictitious  value  to  things  not  likely  to  have  value 
otherwise.  But  this  is  no  reason  for  secrecy ; it  only 
strengthens  the  argument  against  it.  Mackey’s  only 
answer  to  the  objection  is:  “Its  force  is  immediately 
destroyed,  when  we  reflect  that  to  no  worthy  man  need 
our  mysteries  be,  for  one  moment,  covered  with  the  veil 
of  concealment,  for  to  all  the  deserving  are  our  portals 
open.”  This  answer  is  very  like  Freemasonry,  for  it  as- 
sumes that  the  only  possible  reason  for  objection  is  based 
on  some  selfish  interest.  The  objection  is  not  that  / do 
not  know  the  secret,  and  therefore  the  secrecy  is  bad  ; 
but  the  objection  is,  whether  I am  in  or  out,  this  is  a se- 
cret society,  and  the  secrecy  of  a society  is  bad.  Theob- 

7 Freemason’s  Monitor,  p.  21. 


26 


jection,  that  is,  is  to  the  secrecy  of  the  society,  not  to  the 
secrecy  of  little  stock  secret  “traditions  and  esoteric  doc- 
trines.” Why  should  a good  society  with  a good  aim  be 
secret  ? 

President  Seelye  fails  in  the  same  way,  in  his  mild  de- 
fense of  Amherst’s  mild  societies,  to  touch  the  real  point  of 
objection  as  to  the  secrecy.  He  says  “combination  is 
strength.”  Yes,  but  secrecy?  He  speaks  of  “ literary 
culture.”  Is  this  dependent  on  secrecy  ? is  it  as  good  as  in 
open  societies?  Senator  Evarts  does  not  think  so.  At  a 
Yale  alumni  dinner  in  1869,  he  said,  bewailing  the  downfall 
of  the  open  literary  societies:  “ Separate  enclosures  are 
found  necessary,  which  they  call,  not  separate  pens,  but  se- 
cret societies.  Until  Yale  College  outlives  that  folly,  it  will 
deprive  its  graduates  of  a good  part  of  the  education  that 
you  and  I had  the  happiness  to  get  there.”  Dr.  Howard 
Crosby  says:  “I  believe  I am  right  in  asserting  that  in 
most  of  our  colleges  the  literary  societies  have  been  utterly 
ruined  except  as  alumni  centers,  by  the  secret  societies.” 
You  Oberlin  students  have,  in  your  open  literary  societies, 
a drill  such  as  no  secret  society  on  the  continent  furn- 
ishes. President  Seelye  continues,  the  secrecy  is  “largely 
in  name.”  Well,  why  the  name?  He  compares  the  secrecy 
of  the  society  to  the  “proper  privacy  of  families.”  Now 
I do  not  suppose  that  the  secrecy  of  anAmherst  Frater- 
nity amounts  to  much  ; but  just  so  far  as  it  is  a secret  fra- 
ternity, its  secrecy  is  about  as  unlike  the  privacy  of  a 
home  as  could  well  be.  This  is  a kind  of  special  pleading 
often  made  for  other  secret  societies.  It  needs  only  to  be 
noticed  that  even  a home,  with  a natural  and  God-given 
basis,  that  could  never  be  entered  by  any  one  without  an 
oath  to  secrecy,  would  be  soon  suspected,  and  not  long- 
tolerated.  President  Seelye  further  urges  that  the  rivalry 
of  the  societies  is  “ conducted  openly.”  Well,  that  is  good. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  whole  tendency  of  his  defense  is 
to  say  secret  societies  are  good,  so  far  as  they  are  not  se- 
cret. It  is  doubtless  true,  as  he  says,  that  the  tone  of  the 


27 


college  largely  makes  the  tone  of  the  societies,  but  only 
where  the  college  influence  is  strong  and  pervasive;  and 
even  so  the  question  still  is,  Is  the  secrecy  a good  or  a 
valuable  element  ? No  satisfactory  answer  from  the  secret 
societies  to  that  question  is  anywhere  forthcoming. 

Now  it  is  worth  careful  notice  that  this  defense  of  the 
secret  fraternities  is  the  best  that  ca  be  made,  by  a college 
President,  and  in  a college  where  the  fraternities  are  prob- 
ably the  best  in  the  country. 

No  good  cause  does  need  the  defense  of  perpetual  se- 
crecy ; and  no  cause  claims  it  except  secret  societies. 

The  triumph  of  truth  is  in  its  openness.  Even  when 
indirection  and  secrecy  in  a good  cause  seem  wise,  they 
usually  are  not  so,  as  the  United  States  Senate  is  coming 
gradually  to'  believe,  and  if  used  at  all,  secrecy  should 
be  only  temporary,  and  it  must  be  able  afterward  to 
justify  itself  in  the  light.  Truth  need  not  fear,  it  rather 
courts,  the  light. 

Moreover  the  great  defense  against  evil  is  light.  The 
electric  light  has  done  more  to  better  the  bad  quarters  of 
our  cities,  than  any  possible  increase  in  the  police  force. 
The  safety  of  society  is  in  the  exposure  of  all  things  to 
light,  through  the  press.  Oath-bound  societies  interpose 
artificial  barriers  to  this  beneficent  work  of  the  press,  and 
in  just  the  proportion  that  they  do  so,  they  threaten  the 
well-being  of  society. 

Furthermore,  darkness  and  secrecy  provoke  and  pro- 
mote evil.  I recall  one  secret  session  of  our  society  in 
college.  We  talked  more  arrant  folly  in  that  single  ses- 
sion than  in  all  the  open  ones  put  together.  The  nat- 
ural, practically  inevitable  effects  of  secrecy  on  char- 
acter may  well  be  feared  by  any  man.  Dr.  Howard  Cros- 
by says:  “Thirty  years  ago  I was  a member  of  a col- 
lege secret  society,  and  while  I had  upright  fellow-mem- 
bers, and  we  encouraged  literary  culture,  I found  the  as- 
sociation was  chiefly  a temptation  to  vice.”  That  many 
another  student  has  so  found  it,  the  walls  of  not  a few 


28 


chapter  houses  could  testify.  The  well-known  Hartford 
Courant  warmly  approved  Senator  Evart’s  protest,  and 
urged  vigorously  that  the  college  secret  fraternities  furn- 
ished a natural  training  in  the  worst  kind  of  corrupt  po- 
litical methods.  George  William  Curtis  bore  similar  tes- 
timony in  Harper’s  Magazine.  The  tendency  of  the  club 
life,  practiced  in  many  of  the  fraternity  houses,  any  care- 
ful observer  of  modern  American  tendencies,  must  feel  is 
far  from  healthful  in  its  effect  on  the  man,  and  upon  his 
subsequent  home  life.  But  it  is,  perhaps,  the  least  obvious 
effects  of  the  secrecy  of  these  societies,  which  are  most 
to  be  feared.  Here  certainly  Dr.  Crosby  is  a competent 
witness,  and  he  says:  “ They  are  pretenses,  and  thus  at  war 
with  truth,  candor  and  manliness:  however  well  composed 
in  their  membership,  however  pure  their  meetings  may  be, 
the  fact  of  secrecy  is  insidiously  weakening  the  founda- 
tion of  frank  truthfulness  in  the  youthful  mind.  There 
can  be  no  more  important  instruction  inculcated  on  our 
young  men  than  the  necessity  of  truthful  openness,  as  the 
very  warp  of  virtue.”  If  this  is  to  be  said  of  even  college 
fraternities,  what  of  other  secret  societies?  I cannot  hope 
that  this  objection  will  appeal  to  the  heedless,  but  it  will 
appeal  with  power  to  the  men  who  aim  at  the  highest,  and 
mean  to  run  no  risks  of  any  kind  in  character. 

The  secret  society,  in  college  and  out,  easily  lends  itself 
as  an  instrument  of  evil.  Therefore  Chief  Justice  John 
Marshall,  himself  a Mason,  said:  -‘.The  institution  of  Ma- 
sonry ought  to  be  abandoned  as  one  capable  of  much  evil, 
and  incapable  of  producing  any  good  which  might  not  be 
effected  by  safe  and  open  means;”  and  Charles  Francis  Ad- 
ams said  : “ A more  perfect  agent  for  the  devising  and  ex- 
ecution of  conspiracies  against  church  and  state  could 
scarcely  be  conceived.”  It  was  not  because  Freemasonry 
was  itself  a general  conspiracy  against  the  public  good, 
but  because  its  character  as  a secret  society  made  it  an 
easy  instrument  of  evil,  that  Charles  Sumner  had  to  say: 
“ I find  two  powers  here  in  Washington  in  harmony,  and 


29 


both  are  antagonistic  to  our  free  institutions,  and  tend  to 
centralization  and  anarchy,  Freemasonry  and  slavery  ; ” 
and  that  General  C.  H.  Howard  had  to  testify,  of  per- 
sonal knowledge,  that  the  disguises  of  the  Ku-Klux-Klan 
were  often  kept  in  Masonic  lodges. 

The  secret  lodges,  moreover,  must  abide  the  test  of 
the  effects  on  the  Church,  on  the  State,  on  the  Home,  on 
the  Individual  himself. 

What  of  the  effect  on  the  church  ? 

This  is  a Christian  nation  ; an  institution  tending  on  the 
whole  against  the  interests  of  the  church,  is  against  the 
nation.  No  doubt  the  attitude  of  the  individual  lodges 
varies  greatly  with  the  community  ; and  we  have  seen 
how  many  Christian  men  may  not  find  the  lodges  unchris- 
tian. 

But  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  more  pretentious  the 
moral  and  religious  claims  of  such  an  institution,  the 
greater  hindrance  is  it  likely  to  be  to  true  religion  ; for 
the  more  likely  it  is  to  furnish  a refuge  and  excuse  to 
many  as  a substitute  for  a genuine  acceptance  of  Chris- 
tianity; and  no  observant  pastor  not  in  the  lodge  can 
doubt  this  practical  effect  in  many  cases. 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  in  their  form,  many 
of  the  oaths  of  the  lodges  are,  as  John  Quincy  Adams  said, 
such  as  “a  common  cannibal  would  be  ashamed  of,”  or 
they  are  simple  folly;  and  in  either  case  they  are  blas- 
phemous. A Christian  man,  who  means  to  act  intelli- 
gently in  what  he  does,  and  who  really  thinks  what  his 
words  mean,  can  hardly  enter  or  stay  in  the  two  more 
prominent  orders,  Freemasonry,  and  Odd  Fellowship. 

Freemasons  constantly  assert,  that  if  a man  lived  up  to 
the  teachings  of  Masonry,  he  would  be  a good  enough 
Christian.  I can  hardly  think  Christian  Masons  have 
thought  what  this  means,  for  Freemasonry  and  all  the 
prominent  lodges,  with  the  very  aim  of  making  a basis  on 
which  Christians  and  non-Christians  may  meet,  deliber- 
ately leave  Christ  out  of  all  their  prayers  and  all  Scrip- 


30 


ture  used.  I know  of  no  Christianity  without  Christ,  and 
no  Christian  who  finds  some  other  way  than  Christ  good 
enough.  Yet  the  lodges,  it  has  been  well  said,  ‘‘allow  a 
priesthood  without  piety,  a membership  without  morality, 
and  a hope  of  heaven  without  holiness  of  heart.” 

As  to  the  fellowship  of  the  lodges,  let  me  simply  voice 
for  every  Christian  the  testimonies  of  two  men,  neither  of 
whom  can  be  suspected  of  fanaticism,  but  whose  loyalty 
to  high  standards  of  Christianity  is  undoubted — Dr. 
Thomas  Arnold,  of  Rugby,  and  the  evangelist,  Dr.  George 
F.  Pentecost.  Dr.  Arnold  writes  in  answer  to  an  inquiry 
of  a friend:  “These  half-heathen  clubs,  including,  above 
all,  Freemasonry,  are  I think  utterly  unlawful  for  a Chris- 
tian man.  The}7  are  close  brotherhoods,  formed  with  those 
who  are  not  in  a close  sense  our  brethren.”8  And  Dr. 
Pentecost  in  a late  volume  says:  “This  course  of  false  al- 
liance (“with  unbelievers  in  all  manner  of  secret  socie- 
ties”) is  doing  more  mischief  to  individual  Christian  men 
by  turning  their  hearts  away  from  God  and  his  service, 
and  to  the  church  by  depleting  and  robbing  her  of  her 
male  membership  than  any  other  one  enemy  of  Christ.” 

The  lodge  cannot  abide  the  test  of  its  influence  on  the 
church. 

What  are  we  to  say  of  the  effects  of  the  lodge  on 
the  State  ? 

Whatever  may  be  said  under  other  governments,  there 
is  no  excuse  for  the  existence  of  any  oath-bound  secret 
society  under  a republican  form  of  government.  A re- 
public, with  the  ballot  in  the  hand  of  every  man,  offers  no 
justification  for  a secret  society,  and  a republic  is  more 
directly  antagonized  than  any  other  form  of  government 
by  such  societies.  For  a republic  needs  a unified  society, 
a society  that  holds  no  claim  that  can  interfere  with  the 
claims  of  citizenship,  that  allows  no  class  interest  to  over- 
ride the  interest  of  the  whole.  Now  secret  lodges  are 
simply  clannish  cliques ; and  the  tendency  of  cliques  is 
8 Life,  Vol.  II.  p.  230. 


3i 


undemocratic  and  unrepublican  ; and  so  far  as  the}'  have 
influence  at  all  tend  against  unity,  tend  to  disintegrate 
society.  Whether  the  society  has  a political  aim  or  not, 
it  is  sure  to  be  used  for  political  preferment,  as  our  his- 
tory repeatedly  shows.  Few  dangers  seem  to  me  greater 
than  the  present  tendency  of  various  elements  of  the  na- 
tion to  perpetuate  themselves  as  cliques  or  classes.  Per- 
manent lines  drawn  on  a variety  of  subjects,  threaten  seri- 
ous evil.  We  want  no  German  vote,  no  Irish  vote,  no 
Southern  vote,  no  Soldier  vote,  no  Grand  Army  vote,  no 
Grange  vote,  no  Freemason  vote,  no  Catholic  vote,  no 
Congregationalist  vote  even  (if  there  were  any  danger  of 
that) — no  vote  of  any  class  of  any  kind  putting  the  inter- 
ests of  a class  above  the  interests  of  the  nation.  We  want 
only  the  vote  of  simple,  genuine,  loyal  American  citizens. 
But  the  vote  of  all  others,  to  be  regarded  with  suspicion 
and  serious  misgiving,  is  the  vote  that  can  be  secretly 
ordered  and  secretly  controlled.  General  Grant  wel- 
said  : “All  secret,  oath-bound  political  parties  are  dangerl 
ous  to  any  nation,  no  matter  how  pure  or  how  patriotic  the 
motives  and  principles  which  first  bring  them  together.” 

The  oath -bound  secret  society  naturally  tends  to  a di- 
vided allegiance. 

I do  not  wish  to  go  into  a detailed  examination  of  oaths  ; 
but  I say  deliberately,  with  the  oaths  of  all  three  before 
me,  that  the  oaths  of  the  Molly  Maguires  or  the  Clan-na- 
gael  are  to  be  preferred  to  the  oaths  of  even  the  mere 
Master’s  degree  of  Freemasonry.  The  greater  protection 
against  Freemasonry  and  its  kindred  orders  lies,  notin  the 
superior  character  of  their  oaths,  but  in  the  composite 
character  of  their  membership.  This  composite  character 
of  their  membership  is  a real  protection  against  evil  from 
these  secret  orders;  so  that,  in  this  point  of  view,  it  may 
even  be  said,  that  the  larger  the  societies  the  less  danger- 
ous they  are.  But  no  such  allowance  may  be  made  for 
their  oaths.  The  Court  that  condemned  the  Mormon 
Endowment  House  Oaths,  logically  must  condemn  in  the 


32 


same  terms  certain  of  the  Masonic  oaths.  In  spite  of  ini- 
tial assurances  that  the  oaths  involve  nothing  calculated  to 
interfere  with  the  political  or  religious  duties  of  a candi- 
date for  membership,  and  in  spite  even  of  express  oaths 
of  intended  obedience  to  the  government,  like  those  of 
the  fifth  degree  of  the  American  Rite  of  Masonry,  the 
manifest  inconsistency  of  other  oaths,  and  the  acts  and 
utterances  of  secret  orders  hardly  leave  one  at  liberty  to 
doubt  the  naturally  harmful  effect  of  these  oaths  on  the 
allegiance  the  citizen  owes  to  his  government.  The  claim 
made  on  both  sides  in  our  Civil  War  as  to  the  helpfulness 
of  Freemasonry,  virtually  assumes  the  truthfulness  of  this 
charge.  I do  not  suppose  that  Freemasons,  for  example, 
as  a body  are  intentionally  disloyal ; but  a society  in 
which  such  an  utterance  as  this,  from  a Grand  Lodge 
Report  of  Missouri,  1867,  can  go  without  the  severest  re- 
buke, cannot  be  a wholesome  influence  in  the  nation  : 
“ Not  only  do  we  know  no  North,  no  South,  no  East,  no 
West,  but  we  know  no  government  save  our  own.  To 
every  government  save  that  of  Masonry,  and  to  each  and 
all  alike  we  are  foreigners  ; we  are  a nation  of  men  only, 
bound  to  each  other  by  Masonic  ties,  as  citizens  of  the 
world,  and  that  world  the  world  of  Masonry.  Brethren 
to  each  other  all  the  world  over,  foreigners  to  all  the 
world  beside.”  I do  not  mistake  here  the  customary  Ma- 
sonic buncombe,  but  the  sentiment  is  wholly  bad. 

The  way  in  which  the  oaths  of  even  college  secret  soci- 
eties may  interfere  with  the  citizen’s  duty  in  our  courts 
was  plainly  seen  in  the  investigation  following  Leggett’s 
death  at  Cornell  University,  and  very  recently  at  Wis- 
consin University. 

But  I fear  most  for  the  nation,  from  the  natural  and 
practically  certain,  though  unconscious,  effects  of  these 
secret  orders.  The  discriminating  testimony  of  Daniel 
Webster  may  be  allowed  to  state  the  case : 

“All  secret  associations,  the  members  of  which  take  upon  themselves 
extraordinary  obligations  to  one  another,  and  are  bound  together  by 


33 


secret  oaths,  are  naturally  sources  of  jealousy  and  just  alarm  to  oth- 
ers ; are  especially  unfavorable  to  harmony  and  mutual  confidence  among 
men  living  together  under  popular  institutions,  and  are  dangerous  to 
the  general  cause  of  civil  liberty  and  just  government.  Under  the  influ- 
ence of  this  conviction  I heartily  approved  the  law,  lately  enacted  in  the 
State  of  which  I am  a citizen,  for  abolishing  all  such  oaths  and  obligations.” 

With  these  words  of  Webster  take  this  vigorous  pro- 
test from  a journal  of  quite  unusual  discernment,  the  Pub- 
lic Ledger , of  Philadelphia: 

“Notwithstanding  the  presence  of  thousands  of  otherwise  innocent 
men  in  the  Masonic  lodge,  it  is  well  understood  that  a ring  within  a 
ring  runs  the  order,  and  the  order  in  turn  runs  such  innocent  socie- 
ties as  the  Good  Templars,  Red  Men,  and  nearly  or  quite  all  the  so-called 

secret  beneficiary  societies . The  danger  arising  from  such 

conspiracies  is  not  imaginary  but  real.  If  the  truth  were  known  we 
are  suffering  from  nothing  so  much  as  from  this  evil.  And  the  worst  of  all 
is  that  good  men  who  have  gone  into  the  various  secret  lodges  are  being 
used  for  ends  of  which  they  little  dream.” 

Once  for  all  it  may  be  said,  the  great  objection  to 
be  urged  against  the  minor  and  least  secret  orders  is 
here  to  be  seen.  Membership  in  them  shuts  a man’s 
mouth  against  the  principle  of  secrecy ; brings  him 
into  the  general  lodge  system ; opens  a natural  door 
to  the  other  orders,  more  objectionable;  and  makes 
the  man  an  unconscious  agent  of  ring  rule;  and  so  far 
as  the  order  is  secret  at  all,  tends  to  a selfish,  clannish 
and  divisive  spirit  in  society.  The  good  man  may  well 
hesitate  to  cast  his  influence  in  any  way  in  favor  of  the 
secret  lodge. 

That  similar  effects,  in  college  life  and  government,  flow 
from  the  college  secret  fraternities  might  be  easily 
shown,  premising  that  the  fraternities  differ  greatlv  in 
different  colleges  ; but  of  the  natural  tendency  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  Let  this  single  testimony  of  Prof.  Burt  G. 
Wilder,  of  Cornell  University,  suffice.  In  1873  he  said 
in  a letter  to  the  N.  Y.  Tribune'.  “ What  I have  seen  and 
heard  during  five  years  warrants  me  in  affirming  that 
nine-tenths  of  the  mischief  and  immorality  of  the  earlier 
years  of  Cornell  University  was  directly  due  to  the  pres- 


34 


ence  and  influence  of  secret  society  men  who  came  here 
from  other  institutions  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  engraft- 
ing branches  of  their  parent  tree  upon  our  young  and 
otherwise  perfectly  healthy  organization.  And,  further, 
speaking  not  as  a professor,  but  as  a citizen  and  member 
of  the  University,  I feel  no  hesitation  in  adding  that  the 
larger  proportion  of  all  the  disturbances  which  have  in 
any  way  effected  the  comfort  of  students,  of  faculty,  and 
of  citizens,  have  been  either  originated  or  carried  out,  or 
both,  by  means  of  secret  organizations.”  It  was  the  dawn 
of  a wholesomer  and  manlier  day  for  Harvard  College, 
when,  under  the  lead  of  Edward  Everett,  in  connection 
with  John  Quincy  Adams  and  Story,  the  oldest  and  most 
famous  of  all  college  secret  fraternities,  the.  Phi  Beta 
Kappa,  was  in  1831,  so  far  as  Harvard  was  concerned, 
made  from  that  time  an  open  society.  And  this  early  ac- 
tion has  kept  Harvard  clear  of  any  large  influence  of  the 
Fraternities  to  the  present. 

Society  and  the  state  have  reason  to  deplore  the  exist- 
ence of  secret  orders. 

I may  not  pause  to  speak,  as  I had  intended,  of  the 
influence  of  secret  societies  on  the  home  and  on  the  indi- 
vidual. 

I only  ask,  how  can  a man  who  loves  his  home,  and 
knows  what  a freeman  is,  demean  himself  to  join  a society 
of  which  its  highest  authorities  boastingly  say,  as  does 
Pearson  (Sovereign  Grand  Inspector  General),  “ If  we 
would  be  Masons,  we  must  yield  private  judgment,”  or  as 
does  Norris,  “ This  surrender  of  free  will  to  Masonic  au- 
thority is  absolute  and  perpetual  ? ” How  can  a man,  who 
respects  his  free  will  and  its  responsibilities,  consent  to 
take  any  oath,  the  contents  of  which  he  does  not.  know  ? 
How  can  a man  willingly  put  himself  under  the  restraint 
of  fear  involved  in  such  obligations?  How  can  a man 
who  intends  to  be  honest  consent  to  be  a part  of  the 
quackery  of  the  lodges?  How  can  a man  who,  in  manly 
independence,  wishes  no  success  that  is  not  the  legitimate 


35 


reward  of  his  own  character,  abilities  or  exertions,  wish 
to  enter  a system  built  on  the  very  idea  of  partial,  selfish 
interests?  How  can  a man,  who  believes  in  impartial  jus- 
justice,  and  in  a genuine  brotherhood  of  men,  believe  at 
all  in  a false  brotherhood,  whose  very  existence  is  depend- 
ent on  its  exclusiveness?  How  can  a man  who  knows  his 
own  and  his  fellows’  weakness,  wish  to  subject  himself  to 
the  needless  temptation  of  secrecy  and  darkness?  And 
how  can  a man  who  means  to  be  clean,  and  who  loves  pu- 
rity and  integrity,  consent,  needlessly,  deliberately,  to  take 
into  familiar,  close,  obligated,  oath-bound,  fellowship  men 
whose  touch  is  pollution?  And  yet  there  is  scarcely  a se- 
cret order  on  the  broad  earth,  that  does  not  openly  harbor 
many  such  characters,  very  often  high  in  their  councils. 

I confess  that  for  myself,  I like  rather  the  staunch  inde- 
pendent manliness  of  Wm.  H.  Seward’s  words: 

“ Before  I would  place  my  hand  between  the  hands  of  other  men  in  a se- 
cret lodge,  order,  class  or  council,  and,  bending  on  my  knees  before  them, 
enter  into  any  combination  with  them  for  any  object,  personal  or  political, 
good  or  bad,  I would  pray  to  God  that  that  hand  and  that  knee  might  be 
paralyzed,  and  that  I might  become  an  object  of  pity  and  even  the  mockery 
of  my  fellow-men,” 

Recognizing  marked  differences  in  secret  societies  as  a 
whole,  I have  denied  the  claim  of  the  secret  lodges  to  an- 
tiquity ; I have  denied  their  claim  to  possess  secret 
knowledge ; I have  denied  their  claim  to  be  justified  by 
the  membership  of  good  men,  and  have  shown,  without 
condemning  their  motives,  how  the  honest  membership  of 
such  men  is  possible  ; I have  denied  their  claim  to  be 
benevolent  societies:  I have  adverted  to  their  childish- 
ness : and  endeavored  to  show  that  in  spite  of  moral 
aims  or  claims,  the  single  distinctive  element  of  secrecy, 
with  what  this  involves,  makes  the  whole  lodge  system  in- 
jurious in  its  effects  on  society  and  the  individual. 

My  duty  this  afternoon  has  not  been  a pleasant  one  ; 1 
do  not  enjoy  differing  with  my  fellow-men,  and  I would 
gladly  have  chosen  a more  agreeable  theme  ; but  we  may 
not  choose  in  duty. 


36 


I have  not  dwelt,  as  I easily  might,  on  the  horrors  of 
the  system ; I have  made  no  attempt  to  show,  as  would 
also  be  easy,  the  objectionable  elements  of  individual 
oaths  and  their  particular  effects.  I have  chosen  rather 
to  deal  with  the  subject  on  a broader  ground.  Secret  so- 
cieties are  to  be  condemned  as  unbearably  foolish  in  their 
origin,  their  development,  and  historic  claims ; as  inex- 
pressibly childish  in  their  performances ; as  selfish  and 
exclusive  in  their  constitution  and  aims ; and  in  view  of 
the  largest  interests  of  society,  the  Church,  and  the  State, 
are  to  be  condemned  simply  as  secret. 

If  I seem  to  any  one  of  you  to  have  been  over-nice  in 
my  discriminations,  and  objections  to  the  secret  orders,  I 
can  only  reply  with  a recent  writer  on  social  etiquette, 
“ that  every  person  has  clearly  the  lawful  right  to  deter- 
mine for  himself  at  what  point  below  the  highest  point  he 
is  content  to  let  his  social  culture  stop.”  Secret  societies 
cannot  claim  the  support  of  the  highest  in  any  man. 

The  ethics  of  the  lodge  seem  to  me  much  like  the  eth- 
ics of  evolution,  of  which  Courtenay  says:  “ But  it  is  un- 
deniable that  in  some  senses  the  new  morality  speaks 
smooth  things  in  our  ears — things  easy  to  be  understood 
by  our  common  clay.  Let  us  then  pull  down  our  private 
barns,  and  build  larger  social  co-operative  [secret  society] 
ones;  and  let  us  say  to  the  Tribal  Soul,  that  it  has  many 
goods  laid  up  for  many  years,  that  it  may  eat,  drink,  and 
be  both  selfishly  and  altruistically  merry — unless,  indeed, 
we  have  not  yet  banished  the  haunting  suspicion  that 
somewhere,  or  somehow,  or  somewhen,  either  from  na- 
ture, or  fate,  or  fortune,  or  God,  there  may  be  borne  in 
upon  us  the  intolerable  irony  of  that  voice — “ Thou  Fool.” 


s 


\ 


\ 


f 


